You are here

Erin Weir accused of "harassment"

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has announced an investigation into an allegation of "harassing behaviour towards women" against NDP MP Erin Weir. Singh said the allegation is "troubling," is taking it seriously, and is appointing an independent investigator to look into the matter. In a statement to CTV News, Weir said he does not know what is being alleged but said MPs should be held to the highest standard.

CBC News has learned that Singh was spurred into action after NDP MP Christine Moore emailed her colleagues with concerns about Weir's behaviour.

Weir had emailed his fellow NDP MPs on Tuesday to say that he would like to run for the position of caucus chair. Moore replied to Weir's note with concerns about whether he should hold such a leadership position.

"You are the last person in the caucus I would like to see to get that position," the Quebec MP responded, to both Weir and the other MPs.

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble."

Speaking to reporters, Singh said the allegation was not sexual in nature.

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble." If that is not a reference to sexual behaviour then what is she afraid of? Does she think he is going to hit her or brow beat her or tell her that her kids look ugly?

Sexual harrassment includes non-sexual harrassment of only women and not men. So if he only treats women like shit then indeed it is sexual in nature. If you harass both genders equally then you are an asshole and likely in management. I find this e-mail to be extremely problamatic as a way to do caucus politics or business. If she had a complaint about a colleague that caused her to feel unsafe in her parliamentary workplace then it should have been made so his behaviour could be stopped it should not be used only as a gotcha to stop a political career move. In my experience most people who are non-gender biased control freaks and demeanors don't only disrespect people behind closed doors while misogynist pigs often know to hide their worst harrasing behaviours from all but the object of their interest. So if this is not a sexual harrassment complaint then what is it?

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble." If that is not a reference to sexual behaviour then what is she afraid of? Does she think he is going to hit her or brow beat her or tell her that her kids look ugly?

Of course you mock the woman. Women don't say these things without just cause. This is a woman who has reached a fairly high level to be part of such an email. Multiple women had come to her to the point where she would not want to be alone with him. Women don't say these things without cause. Women. Plural.

Yes, women can be afraid of being physically attacked at work. Men can be physically intimidating without laying a hand on us. I don't know if that is the case or not. I do know that men in the party consider the accusation plausible or he wouldn't be removed. Singh said the concern is serious enough for him to take action. Do you think he is over-reacting? There will be an investigation. There is a good chance we will never know what he did. He will probably end up resigning to get confidentiality if he can.

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble." If that is not a reference to sexual behaviour then what is she afraid of? Does she think he is going to hit her or brow beat her or tell her that her kids look ugly?

Of course you mock the woman.

Uncalled for personal attack but I expect nothing less from you than to use a subject like this to further one of your personal vendettas. Thanks for proving to me that this board is no place to discuss anything if you are on it posting at the same time because you just can't stop yourself from attacking men you dislike.

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble." If that is not a reference to sexual behaviour then what is she afraid of? Does she think he is going to hit her or brow beat her or tell her that her kids look ugly?

Of course you mock the woman.

Uncalled for personal attack but I expect nothing less from you than to use a subject like this to further one of your personal vendettas. Thanks for proving to me that this board is no place to discuss anything if you are on it posting at the same time because you just can't stop yourself from attacking men you dislike.

Suggesting the reason women are complaining is because a man might call their kids ugly is mocking women.

I worked for a guy, luckily only for a 3-4 month stint, who was in fact supposed to be my colleague given that I was hired to replace his buddy who left for a gig in media. For whatever reason, he took it upon himself to treat me as if I was supposed to be his personal assistant. That was not the position I was hired for so I tried to politely navigate doing my business development/government relations job without stepping on his toes even though we had to work together on many projects since he was head of communications and marketing. But I really hit the wall when one day he asked to speak to me in the hallway outside our open warehouse space offices to fucking scold me like some old time school teacher for not showing him enough respect. I was angered and humiliated.

He had gotten away with treating the organization as his fifedom because the Board of Directors was acting as the Interim CEO of the organization. He was a pro at sucking up to the chair and board members. Once they hired this amazing woman as the CEO, he was fired.

Sexual harrassment includes non-sexual harrassment of only women and not men. So if he only treats women like shit then indeed it is sexual in nature. If you harass both genders equally then you are an asshole and likely in management. I find this e-mail to be extremely problamatic as a way to do caucus politics or business. If she had a complaint about a colleague that caused her to feel unsafe in her parliamentary workplace then it should have been made so his behaviour could be stopped it should not be used only as a gotcha to stop a political career move. In my experience most people who are non-gender biased control freaks and demeanors don't only disrespect people behind closed doors while misogynist pigs often know to hide their worst harrasing behaviours from all but the object of their interest. So if this is not a sexual harrassment complaint then what is it?

Thank you for that. I had assumed that "sexual harassment" specifically meant harassment involving actions of or evoking sexual acts or demands that a person engage in sexual acts with the harasser. It hadn't occurred to me that it would also refer to a man engaging in any sort of harassment so long as the harassment was confined to a single gender(women, in this case-although it think your definition would encompass harassment that singled out people of non-binary gender). Your post educated me.

Sexual harrassment includes non-sexual harrassment of only women and not men. So if he only treats women like shit then indeed it is sexual in nature. If you harass both genders equally then you are an asshole and likely in management. I find this e-mail to be extremely problamatic as a way to do caucus politics or business. If she had a complaint about a colleague that caused her to feel unsafe in her parliamentary workplace then it should have been made so his behaviour could be stopped it should not be used only as a gotcha to stop a political career move. In my experience most people who are non-gender biased control freaks and demeanors don't only disrespect people behind closed doors while misogynist pigs often know to hide their worst harrasing behaviours from all but the object of their interest. So if this is not a sexual harrassment complaint then what is it?

No this is wrong. If someone(male/man) treats a woman any different than a man then he is a sexist and it is sexism. Now I myself must consider myself to be a sexist because there are times when I am speaking with someone, I may or may not be selective in some certain words I use depending on the gender of the person I’m speaking with. For example I may use more swear words when talking with another man, but I may refrain from using a similar language and be more polite when talking with a woman. No actually that doesn’t sound right? How can I be a sexist for just using more polite language with women?

Christine Moore has released to the media the email she sent Erin Weir

Erin,

As an individual I think we need to be able to be honest at each other and not doing plans or others thing on the back of people. So you will maybe find me really rude but this have to be done.

As a caucus chair you are representing our voice to the leadership, you are there for us when we feel no one else is there for you and you are the last person in the caucus I would like to see to get that position.

There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone.

Given what’s going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble.

You were the only NDP colleague I have to complaint against in my political career, I know since that you probably understood and try to change but for now I don’t tink you should run in any leadership position.

Sexual harrassment includes non-sexual harrassment of only women and not men. So if he only treats women like shit then indeed it is sexual in nature.

Good point, and I agree with you.

I expect the statement about it not being sexual was meant to clarify that it was not an overt sexual assault, even if perhaps they misused the term. Doesn't lessen the seriousness of the allegation, but I know for me it made it a bit clearer.

On Thursday, a staffer told VICE News she was warned about Weir when she first started working on the Hill. VICE News is providing her anonymity because she is afraid to lose her job. She heard from coworkers he had been inappropriate in the past and it was best to just avoid him. More than one person warned her, she said.

It’s not the first time Weir has faced questions regarding misconduct in the workplace.

Last fall, Rylee Schuhmacher, who volunteered for the Saskatchewan NDP, brought forward allegations of sexual assault by one of Weir’s former employees.

When Schuhmacher reported to Saskatoon Police, they told her the case would be “impossible to prove,” CBC reported. The allegations have not been proven in court. As a result of the allegations, the provincial NDP launched two investigations into the matter.

On Thursday, Schuhmacher told VICE News she had concerns with how Weir handled the allegations against his employee. She said Weir publicly defended his employee by saying no one in his office was harassed.

Christine Moore has released to the media the email she sent Erin Weir

Erin,

As an individual I think we need to be able to be honest at each other and not doing plans or others thing on the back of people. So you will maybe find me really rude but this have to be done.

As a caucus chair you are representing our voice to the leadership, you are there for us when we feel no one else is there for you and you are the last person in the caucus I would like to see to get that position.

There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone.

Given what’s going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble.

You were the only NDP colleague I have to complaint against in my political career, I know since that you probably understood and try to change but for now I don’t tink you should run in any leadership position.

I know it harsh but I can’t lie

Christine.

And again, my question is why did she not allow this matter to be dealt with internally before rushing to the media less than 48 hours after Weir sent his email.

Regarding the question of whether it's sexual or psychological harassment in nature, Singh was not definitive in his answer. "No, we're not clear right now, from what I've read nothing suggests it's sexual in nature, it's just harassment from what I've..." http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1151396931610/

A fundamental element of a justice system is the right to be presented with the complaints against you. I hope this will happen soon. If it is found tghat Weir acted in an inappropriate manner, I hope Singh takes appropriate action.

The NDP MP who is now the subject of an investigation into an allegation of "harassing behaviour towards women" says he feels the complaint made by a colleague "might have been politically motivated."....

Weir said while he is unaware if Moore is interested in the caucus chair position, he is unhappy with the way the process has unfolded.

"It feels like it might have been politically motivated," he said in an interview with Don Martin, host of CTV’s Power Play.

He just told me he is guilty by trying to blame Christine Moore completely unecessarily. He hasn't been accused of sexual misconduct. He would have been better off saying he didn't know what the allegations were but maybe he was too blunt at times or perhaps he was misunderstood: he didn't feel he was treating women any differently from men. Trying to cast suspicion on the women is low and makes it worse. Is he suggesting that Moore is lying for political gain and that no women came to her or is he suggesting the women who went to her were lying to Moore for political gain?

The reporter picked up on that and asked him if Moore was seeking the position of caucus chair because what political gain could there be in this for her or for the women who had spoken to Moore? If you are going to suggest that's a motive there must be some gain to the women or to Moore.

Then he casts doubt on the process:

"I just hope that it’s a proper process and one that proceeds promptly so that we can resolve this matter," he said.

He doesn't have much faith in the NDP if he thinks the process may not be "proper" or "prompt". He should be expressing confidence in the process if there is nothing to find.

None of this proves his guilt of course. It sure doesn't make him look good either. There is no political gain for Moore or the "alleged" women who spoke to her so what possible motive could they have for lying? It's pretty strong words to say she wouldn't want to be alone in a room with him. In my experience women don't say that for nothing especially professionally where you want to appear strong and equal to any man and in situations where you have no proof, when it is "he said she said". The Ghomeshi trial was classic. The women were on trial. That's the way it has always been.

Weir thinks the women are motivated by political gain, he should be prepared to describe how they stand to benefit.

How do you know she's not out for political gain? Since we, and apparently Weir, don't know the allegations, anything's possible. And first you say, "this tells me he's guilty," and then you say none of this proves guilt. And guilty of what?

And, again, why did she go public with this less than 48 hours after Weir sent his email? Me thinks there's more to this than meets the eye.

How do you know she's not out for political gain? Since we, and apparently Weir, don't know the allegations, anything's possible. And first you say, "this tells me he's guilty," and then you say none of this proves guilt. And guilty of what?

And, again, why did she go public with this less than 48 hours after Weir sent his email? Me thinks there's more to this than meets the eye.

Describe how she gains politically from this. It's like saying she did it for the money. What money? Where is the political gain for her? As far as I know the email was released after Singh made his public announcement. Maybe she felt it was better to be transparent about what she had said once it hit the news. I still don't see any political gain for her in this.

So far it seems like 100% of the time when a man is named publicly it is only a matter of time before the other shoe drops. More women come forward or the man fades quietly into the background often with some sort of confidenciality agreement. Still the first reaction for some men is to defend the man being accused, to react as though it is a criminal trial. If two people tell me conflicting stories I try to reconcile the accounts often finding truth somewhere in between the two. If not then I turn to plausibility. Sometimes plausibility is equal. When there are multiple accusers plausibility goes to them unless I can see a reason why it should not, for example personal gain on their part.

If multiple men were accusing Weir of stealing things when he was in their offices I don't think the men would be accused of lying for political gain. Or maybe they were just mistaken and lost those items, or they were confused.

"There is too many women (mostly employee) complaint to me that you were harassing to them and as a women I would not feel comfortable to meet with you alone. Given what's going on right now in the political world, I think you should really not run to avoid us any trouble." If that is not a reference to sexual behaviour then what is she afraid of? Does she think he is going to hit her or brow beat her or tell her that her kids look ugly?

Of course you mock the woman.

Uncalled for personal attack but I expect nothing less from you than to use a subject like this to further one of your personal vendettas. Thanks for proving to me that this board is no place to discuss anything if you are on it posting at the same time because you just can't stop yourself from attacking men you dislike.

Suggesting the reason women are complaining is because a man might call their kids ugly is mocking women.

Your attack on me was uncalled for.

Sorry K, but Pondering was right to call you on this. Women's harassment complaints are not to be joked about or mocked.

So making a list of things that are non-sexual in nature that descends from the worst possible to something that while minor is still harassing behaviour is not allowed. Duly noted.

Edited to add. IMO the reason Pondering complained and the reason you agree is because you don't like me much and you parse my sentences to find meanings that are not intended but can be construed if you work from the premise that the poster has ill intent.

3(1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Employment

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Employers have a duty to provide a discrimination free workplace. Harrassment of only women or only gay people is discrimination based on a prohibited ground under the CHRA. Harrassment of a person because of their family is also prohibited such as making fun of a person's mixed race child and that would give rise to a dual complaint. As an MP he is an employer and his staff are covered under a voluntarily signed collective agreement. If he is making a woman who could serve as support staff for our invasion forces nervous then something is really amiss and I want to know why it has been allowed to go on for two years (that is when he got elected). A simple no I think you are an asshole would have sufficed if that is what she means but she claims to be afraid to meet with him by himself because of the way he treats his staff. Why has no one in caucus done anything to protect his staff because certainly if she knows about behaviour that is that inappropriate then it must have been apparent to others.

[47] The Tribunal has attempted to define harassment as any words or conduct that is unwelcome or ought to be known to be unwelcome, based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis from the standard of the reasonable person in the circumstances. It usually denotes repetitious or persistent acts, although a single serious event can be sufficient to constitute harassment (see Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252; and, Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Armed Forces), [1999] 3 FC 653). In the employment context, the key is to examine whether the conduct has violated the dignity of the employee such that it has created a hostile or poisoned work environment (see Day v. Canada Post Corporation, 2007 CHRT 43, at para. 184; and, Croteau v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2014 CHRT 16, at para. 43).

3(1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Employment

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Employers have a duty to provide a discrimination free workplace. Harrassment of only women or only gay people is discrimination based on a prohibited ground under the CHRA. Harrassment of a person because of their family is also prohibited such as making fun of a person's mixed race child and that would give rise to a dual complaint. As an MP he is an employer and his staff are covered under a voluntarily signed collective agreement. If he is making a woman who could serve as support staff for our invasion forces nervous then something is really amiss and I want to know why it has been allowed to go on for two years (that is when he got elected). A simple no I think you are an asshole would have sufficed if that is what she means but she claims to be afraid to meet with him by himself because of the way he treats his staff. Why has no one in caucus done anything to protect his staff because certainly if she knows about behaviour that is that inappropriate then it must have been apparent to others.

[47] The Tribunal has attempted to define harassment as any words or conduct that is unwelcome or ought to be known to be unwelcome, based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis from the standard of the reasonable person in the circumstances. It usually denotes repetitious or persistent acts, although a single serious event can be sufficient to constitute harassment (see Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252; and, Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Armed Forces), [1999] 3 FC 653). In the employment context, the key is to examine whether the conduct has violated the dignity of the employee such that it has created a hostile or poisoned work environment (see Day v. Canada Post Corporation, 2007 CHRT 43, at para. 184; and, Croteau v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2014 CHRT 16, at para. 43).

So krop, sorry to get technical again, but what you've cited does not mention "sexual harassment" at all. It's about discrimination and/or harassment based on a prohibited ground - among which is sex. Sex, as in gender. Not as in sexual acts.

Sexual harassment is not about treating women (or men or non-binary people) differently from others. That's discrimination, and it could be harassment. Sexual harassment is what I cited above from the Canada Labour Code. And it happens to be the way everyone in the world uses that phrase in real life. It's not about shouting at women, or paying women less than men, or treating them like dirt. It's about harassing them... sexually.

Sorry to belabour the point, but when trying to parse Christine Moore's email (and I agree, it's not easy), it's important to keep these distinctions in mind.

Mea culpa. It is discrimination based on sex that appears to be complained about. When I read the e-mail I thought it clearly pointed to a man who likes to hit on women. Then I read that it was not sexual in nature but it still seemed that it was gender related which makes it harassment and discrimination based on the sex of the person. I am truly sorry that somehow saying sexual harrassment instead of harassment based on sex has led to so much thread drift. The e-mail could also be construed that he is just a bully to everyone. Therefore his colleagues should be doing something about it behind the scenes on behalf of staff who probably feel at minimum uncomfortable and from this e-mail possibly terrified of the man. Serious accusations no matter what language you use and inappropriate for any employer let alone an NDP MP.

It'll be interesting to see if there are survivors who speak with the independent investigator(s) that the NDP will be bringing in. Granted, we may not hear of that for a while, but once a decision/resolution comes about, some detail (IE, whether anyone came forward) will likely be put out there.

It'll be interesting to see if there are survivors who speak with the independent investigator(s) that the NDP will be bringing in. Granted, we may not hear of that for a while, but once a decision/resolution comes about, some detail (IE, whether anyone came forward) will likely be put out there.

It'll be interesting to see if there are survivors who speak with the independent investigator(s) that the NDP will be bringing in. Granted, we may not hear of that for a while, but once a decision/resolution comes about, some detail (IE, whether anyone came forward) will likely be put out there.

It'll be interesting to see if there are survivors who speak with the independent investigator(s) that the NDP will be bringing in. Granted, we may not hear of that for a while, but once a decision/resolution comes about, some detail (IE, whether anyone came forward) will likely be put out there.

Survivors?

Singh's own words.

He was speaking of sexual harassment and on the day before the Weir story came out. And Weir is apparently not being accused of sexual harassment. So I don’t know where “survivors” comes into play.

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's, where "We don't have any survivors in this case" doesn't initially read as "We don't have anyone willing to put her name to a complaint publicly", but rather as "Erin Weir murdered every woman he harrassed".

You seemed to have missed the part where I agreed with Kropotkin's interpretation.

You got to be freekin kidding me buddy?!?!?!?!

This is a quote from the article Ken posted that I find the most relevant to this discussion.

It is well-established that sexual harassment may include behaviour that is not overtly sexual in nature.[67] It may include comment and conduct that relates to a person’s gender, and is meant to demean or cause personal humiliation and/or embarrassment.[68] Human rights case law continues to evolve to recognize a more nuanced understanding of the ways that sexual harassment may involve gender-based negative treatment. For example, in a recent case, a tribunal stated:

The Code provides that all persons have a right to be free of discrimination… and harassment in the workplace… "because of sex." There can be no doubt that the reference to "because of sex" captures the concepts of gender, sexuality and sexual categories, as well as sexual characteristics and, therefore, includes sexually-related discrimination and harassment. The focus of a sexual harassment inquiry is not strictly on the gender or sexual orientation of the parties. It is a multi-faceted assessment that looks at the balance of power between the parties, the nature, severity and frequency of impugned conduct, and the impact of the conduct. The key indicia (and harm) of sexual harassment is the use of sex and sexuality to leverage power to control, intimidate or embarrass the victim.[69]

Gender-based harassment is not generally motivated by sexual interest (note, however, that motive is irrelevant in a discrimination analysis: see the section entitled “Burden of proof” for more information). In fact, it is more often based on gender-based hostility and is often an attempt to make the target feel unwelcome in their environment. In many cases, gender-based harassment “undermines, humiliates, or rejects a target on the basis of sex with sexual and sexist remarks, jokes, materials or pranks.”[70]

Gender-based harassment is often used to reinforce traditional sex-role stereotypes, (masculine dominance and female subservience). One author notes:

Gender ideals involve both physical and personality characteristics. Personality characteristics desired in men include assertiveness, independence, and dominance; those desired in women include modesty, deference, and warmth.[71]

At some point over the last few years, a collective decision was apparently taken in the progressive world to replace "complainants", "accusers", and even "victims" with "survivors" when talking about sexual assault cases. I completely understand the semantic logic (reminding people that many sexual assaults are coupled with murder), but it does result in awkward phrasing at press conferences like Singh's...

​The real problem with the word 'survivor' is that it assumes a fact not in evidence. That is, it assumes that everyone who makes an allegation is telling the truth. Otherwise what would they be surviving from?

But that is also why the word was chosen, to emphasize that all allegations will be accepted as true.

Kropotkin, you may not have intended your comment to be mocking but it definitely reads that way. No personal animosity required. Meg isn't crazy about me either. You may not have picked up on it yet but I am a Singh supporter.

Back to the topic at hand, women in particular but also employees in general don't make official complaints about bosses because it isn't good for one's career. No one wants to be pegged a trouble maker. Bad behavior often occurs behind doors and are he said she said or he said he said. Whatever happened is usually minimized in an attempt to find a solution in which the boss doesn't pay or pays minimally. If the boss stays in place then the relationship is awkward with underlying hostility. It's easier to just take it, go home, and grumble there.

Typically an official complaint must be made or nothing is done. That is what has changed. No official complaints required anymore. The onus has been put on executives to investigate when rumours surface regardless of whether or not there is an official complaint.